, nice try. Back in 1998, many democrats stated Hussein was a danger and Clinton was still president, but Bush lied to them. Nice logic. So they were lied to by Clinton? They were telling the truth, but then lied? Russia also lied as well as a handful of other countries stating the same thing? You liberals with your rewriting history when facts get in the way.

Gaff is 100% right. A kurdish state is a not going to happen. Turkey and Iran will not stand for it. America doesn't have the pull right now in the region to get anything big done.

Iraq is heading into civil war and if there ever was a time to start talks about a Kurdish State, it's now. Again, the USA has to be pro-active in a long lasting peace. Iran is going to embroil Iraq into civil war, that is what Iran wants. The Kurds may be the USA's only real ally in that area. Again, it's complicated but I think the key is Turkey. Turkey has been a long standing ally of the USA and this turmoil in Syria and now Iraq is another opportunity to bring the US and Turkey closer together. It sucks, it's a catastrophy waiting to happen if the USA doesn't take a stance somewhere in this turmoil and that could by with supporting an Independent Kurdish State or bring all parties together to negotiate a long lasting peace (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Kurds).

You will never convince me that the USA does NOT have the power to lead in these unstable times. I know we can do it, we just have to be smart and negotiate in good faith, knowing full well that not everyone at the negotiating table will do the same.

From a liberal website, wow. Again, avoiding what leading democrats stated before 2000 about Hussein and Iraq and how that article not surprisingly avoids mentioning it. A good narrative gets ruined that way I know. Nice try sonny boy.

Iraq is heading into civil war and if there ever was a time to start talks about a Kurdish State, it's now. Again, the USA has to be pro-active in a long lasting peace. Iran is going to embroil Iraq into civil war, that is what Iran wants. The Kurds may be the USA's only real ally in that area. Again, it's complicated but I think the key is Turkey. Turkey has been a long standing ally of the USA and this turmoil in Syria and now Iraq is another opportunity to bring the US and Turkey closer together. It sucks, it's a catastrophy waiting to happen if the USA doesn't take a stance somewhere in this turmoil and that could by with supporting an Independent Kurdish State or bring all parties together to negotiate a long lasting peace (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Kurds).

You will never convince me that the USA does NOT have the power to lead in these unstable times. I know we can do it, we just have to be smart and negotiate in good faith, knowing full well that not everyone at the negotiating table will do the same.

Unfortunately our leaders are liars who never negotiate in good faith. The bankers have their own agenda -- and they run America. Their goal is to loot the whole world. Hence US foreign policy is about "opening up" new resources and markets -- for us to control.

Give the bankers a loophole -- a foot in the door -- and they will enter and rape the place.

Until/unless we Americans take our country back from the financial elite we will remain as a people the perverse feedstock for anything and everything malignant.

Unfortunately our leaders are liars who never negotiate in good faith. The bankers have their own agenda -- and they run America. Their goal is to loot the whole world. Hence US foreign policy is about "opening up" new resources and markets -- for us to control.

Give the bankers a loophole -- a foot in the door -- and they will enter and rape the place.

Until/unless we Americans take our country back from the financial elite we will remain as a people the perverse feedstock for anything and everything malignant.

Sad to say -- but all too true./ MHG

Listen gaff, some of your posts are just plane nonsense. But I do think that the lobbyists have a stranglehold on the US Fed Gov. and that yes, much of the legislation that is passed is done so at the expense of the American People (and the middle class in particular).

Here's what I propose, and it's pretty radical, but I think it's necessary and should come from an Executive Order:

Create one building in Washington DC that is for lobbyists. Go ahead and spend $40 million or so (or whatever it costs because it will be a big building, perhaps the biggest in DC) and build a big building with lots of offices just for lobbys. Yes, I know this sounds crazy, but please follow me here--anyone can rent an office, from a tree hugger organization to a grass roots political movement to Wells Fargo. All you have to do is rent and or lease an office (so the money will come back to the American people eventually).

Now, the little guys who don't have lots of money won't have to pay an exorbitant (spelling?) amount of money, but they probably won't have a huge office anyway. Regardless, if you want access to Congress, you have to lease space in this building. Period.

Now, if you refuse to lease space in this building, you have ZERO ACCESS to congress. And, if you are caught soliciting congressional legislators and/or their staff, without officially leasing a space in this building, you AND the congressman/woman/staff will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

OK, so once a group leases an office space in this building it now has the right to ask for a meeting with anyone in congress. It will be up to the congressman/woman to decide to yes, meet with said group or to deny a meeting. However, IT.WILL. BE. ON.RECORD.

For example, if a congressman continaully denies meeting with "The Organization of Native Peoples" it will be on record. If that same congressman meets 10 times a year with "The United Auto Workers" it will be on record. It will be on record how many times these two meet, and for how long they meet. If that congressman/woman (and/or their staff) does not meet with anyone, that too will be on record.

This way, it's trackable which congressman/woman meets with which of it's constituancy and where that politician spends his/her time.

From a liberal website, wow. Again, avoiding what leading democrats stated before 2000 about Hussein and Iraq and how that article not surprisingly avoids mentioning it. A good narrative gets ruined that way I know. Nice try sonny boy.

Give me a solid explanation for why stationing 12,000 in Kuwait is no big deal but 20,000 in Iraq is impossible because of some quasi-religious ideological difference.

Quote:

Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal.

One of the great virtues of Obama's election was that with his hands personally clean of the original sin of invasion, he was able to judge forward-looking policy on the merits. The situation in Iraq was a mess, but a mess that the United States of America was not capable of fixing. That was true in 2003 and it was true when our troops left and it remains true today.

Sending in the Marines and hoping for the best is no more likely to work than keeping the Marines out and hoping for the best, and it never has been. Admitting that we made a mistake and that the wisest course was to cut our losses and get our troops out was one of the best calls Obama ever made.

It sounds to me like Maliki didn't really try. This article says that in 2008 the Iraqi Parliament ok'd this US Military's immunity but in 2011 it would not have been possible, why? Is it because Maliki is not behind the US?

Again, if Obama was any kind of a leader, he'd have negotiated a better exit strategy for the US. He'd have put it onto Maliki's shoulders to persuade Iraq's parliament to pass the immunity legislation.

Also, the article even admits that this is not the case in every country. The article clearly states "These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord."

Um so ok. That's room for the US Forces to stay. Period. And again, if BO was any kind of diplomatic leader, he'd have a way to make this possible in Iraq too.

What "diplomacy" could Obama have pursued that would have changed their mind on the big issues surrounding our presence there after the SOFA ended?

How can US Forces operate in countries that don't grant immunity from prosecution or have a SOFA in place? That's a starting point. I'd also negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding if the Iraqi Parliment refuses to give US Troops immunity from prosecution. Or I'd ratify a temporary treaty with Iraq until the US Forces are withdrawn.

I mean, there're ways of doing stuff. I'm not advocating that the US stay permanently in Iraq, what I'm saying is there are diplomatic avenues that the US could have pursued that would have bought more time for the US forces to remain in Iraq. Even if the US Forces stayed there a few more years it would have had a great impact on current issues, especially the Syrian issue. Syria hated the fact that US Troops were in Iraq.

I know it's complicated, I know it would take some rather creative diplomacy. But if there is one guy who could tap dance Iraq into giving the US Troops a little more time before a permanent withdrawel it's BO.

Iraq is heading into civil war and if there ever was a time to start talks about a Kurdish State, it's now. Again, the USA has to be pro-active in a long lasting peace. Iran is going to embroil Iraq into civil war, that is what Iran wants. The Kurds may be the USA's only real ally in that area. Again, it's complicated but I think the key is Turkey. Turkey has been a long standing ally of the USA and this turmoil in Syria and now Iraq is another opportunity to bring the US and Turkey closer together. It sucks, it's a catastrophy waiting to happen if the USA doesn't take a stance somewhere in this turmoil and that could by with supporting an Independent Kurdish State or bring all parties together to negotiate a long lasting peace (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Kurds).

You will never convince me that the USA does NOT have the power to lead in these unstable times. I know we can do it, we just have to be smart and negotiate in good faith, knowing full well that not everyone at the negotiating table will do the same.

IMO our relationship with Turkey is at a low point right now. I think you are crazy if you think there is any chance the Kurds will be supported by the USA for an independent state. Not saying they wouldn't make a good ally, just don't see them coming close to the importance of Turkey who holds the keys to the whole region when it comes to the sea access to the black sea.

Because NEVERBAMA'SFAULTNOMATTERWHATPUBLICANSSAYS! In muffled Presidential-Pole in Mouth tone.

Great argument.

But I never blamed your personal man crush. Our failure in Iraq is much wider and deeper.

You can't argue this crap with liberals. I will give liberals one thing, sometimes we need them to make progress on social issues. It's not always good but they serve a purpose. But you are exactly right we have troops in S Korea because it's the smart thing to do for stability of the whole Asian theater. Iraq should never have been abandoned and Obama failure to achieve an agreement leaving troops was a huge huge blunder.

The lead from behind liberal mantra is very dangerous. More dangerous then attacking iraq ever was.

Gaff is 100% right. A kurdish state is a not going to happen. Turkey and Iran will not stand for it. America doesn't have the pull right now in the region to get anything big done.

For American regard, I would think more on Turkey not allowing it. It starts to make sense to allow it and knowing they are fighting for their land and not running and giving up like we have heard from the Iraqi army. The more you ask for Iran's help, the more you will need to listen to their wants and needs.

It sounds to me like Maliki didn't really try. This article says that in 2008 the Iraqi Parliament ok'd this US Military's immunity but in 2011 it would not have been possible, why? Is it because Maliki is not behind the US?

Again, if Obama was any kind of a leader, he'd have negotiated a better exit strategy for the US. He'd have put it onto Maliki's shoulders to persuade Iraq's parliament to pass the immunity legislation.

Also, the article even admits that this is not the case in every country. The article clearly states "These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord."

Um so ok. That's room for the US Forces to stay. Period. And again, if BO was any kind of diplomatic leader, he'd have a way to make this possible in Iraq too.

There are a lot of different stories out there. One is that the last general in command wanted to leave 20+,000 stationed in Iraq. But the President only wanted a few (token) thousand left at most.

Iraqi officials saw a token presence as tactically useless, and figured there was no use expending political capital on a useless token American presence.